Barney is not a good debater
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it
- Beaten good opponents.
- Good analysis abilities.
- How we determine this? Two ways
- Look at all their opponents holistically - what is their combined record?
- Combined records is a good way to determine strength. Eg. if my record is 100-0 but all my opponents have lost 10 times this isn't impressive. However, if my record is 10-3 and all my opponents have won 100 times, this is indicate of a better debater. It isn't perfect, but the probabilities of noob sniping is much less in the bare record (more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people).
- For reference two debaters we consider good
- Whiteflames
- 1171-1704 (excluding oromagi because he is an anomaly)
- Bones
- 238-159
- Notable people they have beaten
- Whiteflames
- Oromagi
- bmdrocks21
- blamonkey
- RationalMadMan
- Ehyeh
- Undefeatable
- Intelligence
- MrChris
- Tejretics
- very respectable - these guys all have positive ratios themselves, and Tejretics was a DDO goat.
- Bones
- Whiteflames
- Fauxlaw
- Benjamin
- Nyxified
- Sum1hugme
- Respectable, considering the small numbers of debates done - Nyxified was herself a state champion debater.
- Combined record
- 390-1104
- FUN FACT - Barney has, out of his 37 opponents beaten on 3 people with a positive win loss ratio
- Strong opponents
- Novice (who he calls bad at debating) and who he is currently running from.
- shas04 who is 0-2, 17 years old and who barney said "Were this debate to happen today, I am quite certain I would lose; and justly so"
- Literally no one else. I couldn't find a single person who hadn't lost three times more than they had won.
- Win Record
- Leaderboard
- Quality of Debates
- The Hall of Fame winning Fetuses as a replacement for the USD (3, 4).My opponent for that demonstrated himself to be quite good in his months before facing me, with several victories and a fine showing against Pinkfreud08; for which my arguments were able to turn a pro-life voter (5).
- I successfully navigate trap debates, such as Brandon Stark will be the one who leads Westeros at the end of episode 6 (6)(and yes, sourcing pun intended).
- I even win arguing uphill against truisms, as seen with The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God (7).
- And let us not forget it was one of my debates which spawned the meme worthy “Mr. Hitler” quote (8). And including Like a Boss as a serious line of contention (9, 10)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
- https://www.debateart.com/leaderboard/debates
- https://info.debateart.com/hall-of-fame#debates
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/866
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/654
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/931
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/950
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2397
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2184
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c
- http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/803
- https://tiny.cc/Kritik
- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/causes-of-death-in-children?time=2008
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2745-ragnar-first-gold-ama?page=1&post_number=4
- I'll start of with CON's case, which will morph into my own. Just some thought before I dive in, the first two arguments are premised on the very mechanism I critiqued - that utterly manipulatable elo system which allows for noob sniping.
- B's point in his Win Record Argument is this.
- p1. I have long win record compared to everyone else.
- C1. Therefore I am good debater.
- B's point in his Leaderboard argument is this.
- p1. I have a high elo compared to everyone else.
- C1. Therefore I am a good debater.
- The argument here is assumes that a win record and high elo is indicative of a good debater. This is not the case. I clearly provided a criteria for a good debater (beaten good opponents and have good analysis) and farming wins does not satisfy any of these criteria.
- Though it may seem odd, winning debates here does not necessarily mean you are a good debater. Consider for example, as I said in my first round, someone who snipes 100 debates. By B's logic, this person would be good at debating. This makes no sense, does someone who picks on people who they know will forfeit debates show they are a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner to a degree which will make them good? Obviously not. I proposed a far better metric (looking at the combined record of past competitors) to which I get zip nada response from B.
- 1. B himself said it was a "satirical debate on fetuses" (comedic ≠ good debater) which got only three votes at the end.
- 2. Awful - PRO's entire first round was two sentences, unstructured, unsourced, clearly suggestive of a not good debater.
- 3. Against some guy who's 0-2 who plagiarised his argument.
- And the last's claim to fame was the spawning of some "Mr Hitler" quote, which doesn't suggest a good debater, merely a "funny" opponent if anything.
- Even if you think any of these one debates were good, to be a good debater, you need to have more than a single good debate. B has not shown this in any way.
- Beaten good opponents
- B hasn't
- Beaten anyone notable
- got analysis skills
- good resume
- gg
- Debates being too dry to read does not imply good quality. Besides, my satire easily defeated a wholly serious and good debater who had most votes thrown out for treating the debate as comedy. Extend.
- No challenge to me being great at analysis to defeat well laid traps has been offered. No samples of other debaters having the skill to do likewise have been offered. Extend.
- That my opponent plagiarized part of his argument, was not factored into argument allotments. I out analyzed a deeply rooted truism. No samples of other debaters being able to do this has been offered. Extend.
- Comedy gold is a net good.
Pro introduces another standard of a good debater of simply: “never forfeit.” I have consistently met this standard [7]; unlike many of the notables pro lists.
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Handwave
- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/central_limit_theorem.asp
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3713/comment-links/46196
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3651/comment-links/45355
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/3406/comment-links/41526
- https://www.debateart.com/participants/Barney/debates?result=lose&status=finished
BARNEY is NOT a GOOD DEBATER
As always, any debater who sets a generic, subjective standard without defining that standard deserves to lose her debate outright. There are few move more amateurish then arguing that something is good without defining what good means in context.
PRO makes 3 argument, all quite weak
One: PRO argues falsely that "not good" is a neutral condition that ought to be presumed, shifting to burden of proof to CON. SInce PRO failed to define "good" in the context of this debate this argument must fail. If "good" is defined as, say, most likes in the FORUM section then PRO's argument is obviously false. Worse, PRO rather muddies the question of GOOD vs. BAD by invoking Socratic ethics. If PRO is applying some moral standard here, he fails to make the case. As instigator and maker of a claim that contradicts the debateart.com convention, the Burden of Proof here is 100% PRO's.
Two: PRO argues that Barney lacks the traits of a good debater but the only trait PRO mentions is analysis and instantly offers that he is incapable of making such an argument. PRO argues that win/lose record is an example of a debater's trait but this is obviously false. By definition, debaters have little influence over their win/lose and so that record can't be ascribed to debaters as a trait. We need only look at the top ten win/lose records on this site and note that there are 3 or 4 debaters found there that couldn't format a proper syllogism if their life depended on it to understand that win/lose records are political artifacts with no connection to qualities or traits or performance or conduct of individual debaters.
Three: PRO argues that nobody on this site is a good debater when compared to debaters outside of this site. Unfortunately, PRO has forgotten the one rule he set for this debate which was that "we only consider debateart .com" Having violated his own single rule, PRO invalidates this argument and makes an excellent case for losing this debate outright just on rules violation
CON starts with two arguments based on win/lose records which I have already stated are objectively non-persuasive. There is no relationship between the quality of debaters on this site and win/lose records.
CON's third argument finally begins to adress the quality of a "good" debate- public recognition, dodging traps, overcoming truisms, meme-worthiness. I think there plenty more important qualities but CON goes way ahead here by defining a standard.
In rebuttals, CON correctly calls out PRO on his subjective standard and gives one good example of the unreliability of win/lose records for analyzing debate quality. CON refutes PRO's lame 'analysis' argument by providing one example debate that definitely demonstrates some skill in analysis. CON correctly call out PRO for failing to abide by his own rule setting the scope of this debate.
In ROUND2, PRO deceptively pretends that he did not limit the scope of this debate to debateart.com, earning a lost point for conduct.
PRO explodes his already failed second argument by confirming that win/lose/leaderboard is no reflection of quality. PRO entirely undermines the majority of his ROUND 1 here.
PRO then undermines his undermining by further relying on win/lose to counter CON's examples of quality debating. PRO's failure to define GOOD up front effectively give him no ground against CON's very reasonable examples of quality. PRO can't make up his mind from one paragraph to the next whether win/lose records is an indication of quality.
CON quite rightly objects to PRO wild inconsistencies regarding scope and win/lose record. PRO correctly stands by his example of quality in his debate style as entirely unrefuted (mostly because PRO seems to feel no obligation to define some objective standard for quality.
From first to last, PRO fails to erect any rhetorical goalpost for his assertions,fails to set an objective standard for "good," and consistently contradicts and undermines the argument he devoted all of his energy to in ROUND1- comparative win/lose.
PRO never really built a substantial case on any particular and made CON's job pretty easy here. ARGUMENTS to CON
CONDUCT to CON because PRO violated his own single rule for this debate, limiting scope to debateart.com and then pretending that rule does not apply to his (entirely absent) defintion of a "good" debater.
RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UvsRs2_mNCWYsLy5ufZoAGvduqCEq9Je3Xc2rTU3bng/edit?usp=sharing
TL;DR: Con effectively utilized the absence of thresholds from Pro's arguments, as well as points that Pro either dropped entirely or punted to Con early, to establish that he at least meets some criteria for what Pro considers to be a good debater. Since Pro didn't include offense in his argument (e.g. why Barney is a bad debater), largely just undermining the question or arguing that he can't demonstrated that he is, winning on any of these points was sufficient to net Con the debate. Con wins on some of them, so I vote Con.
RFD in comments.
I just want to open by saying that I have absolutely nothing against either debates and that particularly for Barney, I have nothing but respect for the contributions you have made in this site. Of course, debates ought not be awarded to who we respect, but rather who articulated better arguments.
Burden:
From the get go Vici establishes the Chaos state as the proof for a burden shift towards his opposition. For Barney to accept this is an absolutely terrible decision . It means that I must enter the debate judging Barney as if he were a new user, and then assessing whether the proofs he provides are sufficient in elevating him to "good" status (they could have just cited Wikipedia and asserted that Vici was the claim maker and quite convincingly threw the burden back). Even though a lot of us see Barney as "good", it is actually very difficult to establish what qualities contribute to "good" in a quantitative manner in the given character limit.
Metrics:
Vici provides the combined record analyses as his means for judging whether a debater is good, whilst taking note to emphasise why it is superior to the traditional elo and leaderboard system - "more difficult to find 10 bad opponents who've won 100 times than to snipe 100 people". I find this system problematic, but nonetheless far more capable than the traditional system. Note that if this argument is successful, two of Barney's contentions are nullified. Barney has some scattered rebuttals - he says that Vici cites the later records of his opponents rather than what they were, but Vici's reply of the boxer seems sufficient to me.
The "controversial" rule in the descriptions:
I was drawn to this debate quite frankly because of the abhorrent quality of the other votes (sorry), especially the ones which deducted arguments on the basis of the alleged "rule" in the description. This is entirely unconvincing. First, from a logical standpoint, Vici provides sound reason as to why we ought accept universal definitions with the example of the public speaker - that if someone asks "are you a good speaker, answer whilst only considering X website", it is clear that "consider" implies that we ought derive sources from only the website as opposed to any other source, not that we ought to define the term "'speaker". Obviously, all definitions are outside of this site (no such thing as a debateart owned definition) so it is entirely logical to derive definitions from a dictionary. Those who argue that "Vici must prove that Barney is a not good debater within the standards of this site" have terribly misunderstood the definition of "debater" and ought to bear the burden of conjuring any source which indicates that "good debater" refers explicitly to this narrow definition. Secondly, from just an emotional intelligence perspective, when Vici says "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it" it is clear that they mean that we ought derive sources, as debate.org was mentioned as a prohibited (clearly indicating that Barney's record from there cannot be utilised).
Overall arguments:
The argument comes down to Vici's metric, which acts as a preemptive rebuttal to Barney's entire case. Barney's refutations of it were not sufficient and amounted to poking holes at it instead of attacking it's essence. Furthermore, that Barney took up the entire burden meant that even if Vici's metric was disproved, he would be left at square one, for it is his burden to build bottom up a case why he is good (simply refuting the metric would have left him as the status quo 1500 debater). I mean this with absolutely zero disrespect, but in my opinion, this is a clear cut argument point allocation to Vici from me.
Source:
Equal. That Barney sites common sense claims (his profile, the leaderboard) does not constitute a point awarded.
Pro's case relied entirely upon one core tenet:
That defeating and competing with other good opponents (and, of course, winning often enough when doing so) defines a good (or better than good) debater.
Con truly rebuts this in Round 2 because he notes that whtieflame and bones themselves are good rating but I find this flawed.
Instead, using the same logic of Con's Round 2 Kritik, I notice that when Pro says whiteflame defeated good debaters and also says that Bones did, the debaters they defeated are called 'good' for no reason other than rating.
Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety.
If nobody on DART is a good debater relative to world debaters, then why the hell did Pro juxtapose Barney's noobsniping against the fact that whiteflame and Bones defeated good debaters?
The case of Pro actually was a flawed attenpt at a pincer BoP trap. I myself pioneered this idea but I do not care about that now. A pincer BoP is a phrase I coined to describe a strategy of having 1 or 2 contentions that actually directly cannot be true if another is true (from the same side).
This works well when the opponent has to clearly exert characters and energy to defeat them, since it blackmails the opponent to need to build and defend two independent coubtercases on top of their constructive. Conversely, this works terribly and backfires if it actually directly enables the opponent to reverse said pincer by dismissing one with the other in an immediate manner. It takes finesse to pull off and close attention to how direct vs indirect the contradiction is for a voter and opponent to grasp.
Barney's case is that his winrate is higher than other high-rated debaters at the tier he is and that Pro is completely subjectively drawing differentiation between good vs mediocre debaters that are ranked high based on if he deems the opponents of debaters good or not, making the entire thing subjective and thus not objective.
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings, they cover the majority of his claims regarding different statistics on DART, as well as voting outcomes, he also provides definitions for the relevant topics of statistics and logical fallacies. Pro doesn't completely fail to provide sources, but a lot of the things he says are completely without a source, such as the first paragraph about Plato and Chaotic states, the list of other "good debaters" and who they have beaten. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.
ARGUMENTS:
According to the debate description, we are considering DebateArt as the criteria. So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description. CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates. This means that CON better followed the debate's structure than PRO and therefore has won the debate. The question was never "is Barney and OBJECTIVELY good debater" (according to the description), but if Barney's performance on DebateArt is good, since the description blatantly states that DebateArt will be considered.
SOURCES:
CON and PRO both had reliable sources, but CON cited significantly more reliable sources than PRO over the course of the debate. The sheer volume of citations back to previous debates and profiles proving Barney's performance on DebateArt went unmatched by PRO, who relied on a cursory analysis that he/she did not reveal to the general public and only included a laundry list of people PRO considered "good" based on his/her unshared spreadsheet.
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR:
Both sides had typos and basic grammar errors. But none of these errors were able to sufficiently impede comprehension, so both are tied in regard to this score.
CONDUCT:
Both were equally respectful and the dialogue was open and barely hostile.
I haven't been through the entire debate yet, so I can't know what arguments you emphasized, but just looking back at those two points, it does appear as though Public-Choice addressed those issues, at minimum in response to you in the comments. He seems to be straight up telling you that any response doesn't suffice to get around what was in the description. That's dismissive, but it's not ignoring your arguments. He's telling you why those arguments don't work based on his perception of the debate's setup. Not really sure what more you wanted him to do here in order to justify a vote that clearly runs contrary to your central thesis, since, based on the back-and-forth I'm seeing here in the comments, it would have just been extensions of the same point he has already made in the RFD.
last thing from me but what do you think of post 56. This is very serious - public choice did not respond in any capacity to my argument.
I don't see him copy-pasting any rhetoric from Con in his RFD. He found this view of the debate and what the description confines it to persuasive. He explained how that view of the debate affects how he views your arguments. He doesn't have to look at them all individually in order to express that there is a problem with them under this framing of the debate. That looks like reasonable analysis to me, it's certainly not akin to "copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as a vote."
For example;
"So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description."
ADDRESSED substantively through Clarification: Debater vs Debater to which Public Choice gave NO thought.
"CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates."
ADDRESSED substantively through Argument two: B does not have the traits of a good debater subsection good analysis abilities argument combined record, which the voter gave NO thought too.
I get that voters cannot look through everything, but these are literally my ENTIRE contentions - they constitute my ENTIRE argument. They should be looked at in voting.
below
"He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point"
The voting policy clearly says "A sufficient vote must not merely reiterate who you agreed with, rather you should be able to vote against your preferred side should their case be inferior". Point to me where there was analysis. Public choice said "So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description" however I am not aware he was a third debater?? This is just reiterating the CON point where is the analysis? Again, what Public Choice has done is akin to me going to some debate, copy and pasting the side which I agree withs conclusion, and submitting it as my vote. NEVER does public choice EVER engage with my arguements, and its not as if my arguments were unclear, I literally put them under very clear subtitles which went completely unanalysed.
It is not that I disagree, it is that the vote is NOT sufficient under the current voting standard, unless the standard allows for voters to merely restate an argument.
He addressed an issue with your argument that applies to your main point. You clearly don’t like or agree with it, but that doesn’t make the vote insufficient under the voting standards. Agreeing with one side’s argument doesn’t make it insufficient, either.
Also, consider this your final warning. Your account will be banned if you continue with these insults.
if I do an abortion debate and define abortion as "drinking water" OBVIOUSLY THSI WOULD BE DUMB BECAUSE IT IS JUST ACCEPTED THAT WE OUGHT TO USE THE DICTIONARY INSTEAD OF WEIRDO DEFINITIONS.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't.
WHY DO I NEED TO SAY THIS. THIS IS LIKE SAYING "we are agreeing to logic, we are agreeing to the law of non-contradiction, we are voting based on who has better arguments". THIS IS UTTERLY STUPUD - IT IS REASONABLE TO USE THE GOD DAMN DICTIONARY AS A SOURCE AND ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE. FURTHERMORE, THESE TERMS ARE TOO BE DEBATED IN THE DEBATE, AND I PROVIDED SUBSTANTIVE PROOF AS TO WHY MY DEFINITION IS BETTER.
this is bull shit - the only reason you didn't take it down is because you don't like me. the vote does not address any arguments. how can you let this go? my MAIN argument is not addressed. Also, the dumb voter just repeated the CON point - this is like if I vote for a debate and just copy and paste the side I like's conclusion as my vote, without looking at the substance of the vote.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter is allowed leeway for reasonable interpretation of the debate and the rules therein, particularly as stated in the description. So long as that voter equally applies that interpretation to both sides and considers specific arguments presented by both debaters, that is sufficient. Regarding sources, while number of sources alone is not a sufficient criteria, the voter considers specific criteria for assessing the strength of those and provides specifics about the contents of those sources in that assessment. As such, it is sufficient.
**************************************************
Consider this a formal warning. There are limits to what a debater can say in response to a vote, and you crossed that line several times by directly insulting Public-Choice. Discussing the vote and even disagreeing with it is fine, but insulting his intelligence is not. Additionally, spamming PMs to a voter to express your distaste for their vote, particularly in a hateful manner, is also out of bounds. Continuing this type of behavior will require that I take action to prevent further posts.
They're only outside the nature unless the source clearly has definitions for the words in question. And, in this case, DART has definitions for good debater. The leaderboard and Hall of Fame. So you have boxed yourself in by your own description. This isn't my fault as the Voter. It is yours as the person who set up the debate.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't. This is why, if you look at my debates that I set up, I ALWAYS include a dictionary, and I do my best to choose a dictionary that is reputable for whatever the debate field is. You could have done this, but you didn't. This isn't my fault. It is yours.
Calling me a dumbass doesn't change the fact that you stupidly created a debate that you set yourself up to lose. And then you ignored your own debate rules to win your debate. It isn't the voter's fault that you flagrantly disregarded your own description. It is yours.
https://www.dictionary.com
here is a dictionary so you can learn some words.
for example, if I make a debate saying "X user has acted in an immoral way" and put in the description "we only consider this site" it is VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO ISNT A DUMBASS that "immoral way" is still defined NORMALLY - that is, in a way that is not moral. it doesn't mean we take this weirdo definition "oh well for the STANDARDS OF THIS SITE they aren't immoral" NO dumbass this isn't what we do we use the definition which is COMMONPLACE dumbass do you understand?
So you are, at this point, just proving my analysis correct.
yeah I know you seek validation after your dad left you but no need to lie ok?
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website.
yes but DEFINITIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE WEBSITE BY NATURE DUMBASS. I can say "barney used sources such as wikipedia which are outside of this site, and they also mentioned the special pleading fallacy which originitated outside the site" obviously we use REAL WORLD TERMS AND DEFINITIONS bu saying "we consider this site" doesn't mean we change the definition of words dumbass.
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website. This violated your own description. You have admitted this twice. So you are, at this point, just proving my analysis correct.
could you please have a look at this vote?
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
no dumbass don't apply your "in other words" bs. I have shown why it is NORMAL to consider definitions OUTSIDE of a website and that it is UTTERLY ABSURD to define a good debater or speaker outside within a medium. when you ask "are you a good debater" I am asking if you are a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner well. obviously you can be the person who tops this site but is still not A PERSON WHO ARGUES ABOUT A SUBJECT ESPECIALLY IN A FORMAL MANNER WELL
I can read just fine. You also stated, within that block quote you just put:
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
That is a blatant admission that you are using special pleading. You are asking people to ignore your own debate description and instead redefine the standards of good based on criteria your own description disallowed.
Once again, it isn't my fault as the Voter that you decided to ignore your own rules.
B quite cheekily states the following: I shall assume via context that it is a reference of degree of skill and quality to a notably above average at debating within the confines of this website. I will refer you to the definition proposed in the first round, which says a debater is "a person who argues about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B is trying to make it so that to be considered "good", they must be good only within this site. This is not the case. Imagine if I created a public speaking community with three people and I am the best. Sure, I would be the best within the site but would I be "a good speaker"? Clearly not, because the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use, it is whether they are good at "arguing about a subject, especially in a formal manner". B may wish to say the description says "we only consider debateart", but this clearly does not mean we should redefine "debater". Using my speaker example again, if I were to open a speaking comp and question whether someone else was good, whilst putting into description "we only consider this site", it clearly indicates that we can only use what we know of the person from the site (hence consider this site), but that we are still considering their speaking ability with the common definition as opposed to some weirdo skewed one which only considers those within the site.
dumbass learn to read
You can address things however you'd like, but your description explicitly stated "we only consider DebateArt."
If you wanted to include other criterion, then you should have put it in the description or phrased it differently. It isn't the voter's fault you ignored the rules you set up for your own debate.
According to the debate description, we are considering DebateArt as the criteria. So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description'
hey you dumb fraudster I already addressed that with a plethora of examples and proof.
hey fraudster, your vote is insufficient.
Hey Barney jr and Barney jr, can you vote??
Wow - your case is just horrible. Initially when I made this debate, it was a bit of tongue and cheek but now, I am fully convinced that you are a sham. You literally straw manned my argument (ignorance of the Clarification: Debater vs Debater section, introduction of a whole bunch of new points at a time when I cannot respond because of course ur whimpy ass wont mention them in the first round where I can respond, anda whole bunch of disgusting strawman). I truly wish I made this debate five rounds so that I can properly teach you some debating skills.
will you be voting good sir?
they call me the boa contrictor - i led barney into a trap and like an injured gazelle, he walked in like a zombie - by the time he realised it was too late, for the serpants fangs had found their way into the heart of the coward. never underestimate me again
do you play dodgeball?
Thought I'd be posting this morning, but I've got to go take care of a few things. But don't worry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
you can also vote, in doing research ive seen that barney is also your daddy.
wow - do you not understand this is ad hoc bs that you are saying??? we should look at barney as he is - that he has no win ratio or opponents. Instead, you ad hoc say that perhaps this is because he is good but just happens to be against bad debaters. this is pure speculation. we have no reason to believe this.
if we see that barney has all the attributes of a not good debater, we should believe he is a not good debater, instead of hypothesising that he is possibly good.
Just because his win ratio and opponents aren't impressive, doesn't mean the debater is bad. You use a metric of ELO and win percentage, ignoring the fact that people can be inherently good debaters but happen to queue against bad debaters.
orosadmi, will you be voting?
"I really do not think this is a winnable topic for Pro here"
wtf are you talking about??? what argument has barney made???? have you red the debate????? have you seen my arguments???? you mention DDO but you are clearly blind because the description doesn't let you mention DDO so L lmao.
I would say that some explanations are far more plausible or reasonable than others.
There are a variety of reasons to reject a debate. Don't confuse his refusal with fear.
We can see about who is or isn't winning the debate later, but it seems very obvious from my current point of view.
As for the latter, I will state openly that the moderator in question is not a good debater at least by the standard people view him with. I am, of course, very willing to debate him on many topics with the idea in mind to demonstrate this, however it does not seem like Barney is at all interested in debating me, and it frankly seems like he is hesitant to.
I really do not think this is a winnable topic for Pro here. If you think he's in some kind of "emotional state" for this debate, then you and Vici are severely underestimating him. I think you guys would understand just how good Barney is if you saw him on DDO.
Well, it is a long story. Putting it simply, Barney was running away from a debate with me, so Vici baited him into debating this when Barney was in an emotional state.
bruh why does this debate exist lmao
it is simply a logical impossibility
there is no way he can win, unfortunately
This was actually a very interesting read. I wish it were longer though.
I will stay silent until Barney has posted his Round.
This debate depends heavily on certain unnamed 'thing's being important or ultimately unimportant.
I will go into those things after Barney has posted his closing Round.
I really want you to vote on this. Im only asking because I want to see how far you'll bend backwards to give barney the win when im supposed to win. I just want to see your prevaricating ad hoc bs at full display, because I know there is no way you would ever vote for me. This is a short read so there is no excuse for you.
again im really sorry but it had to be done.
done
I never considered Barney as a debater. He is more like an old man telling war stories. His profile agrees with this.